Testudo
Testudo
I was a bit surprised that testudo-formation isn't in the game while the pikes have a square formation. The Legionnaires in the game are completely helpless against missile attacks when historically they had effective defense against it.
I think the testudo formation whould be pretty easy to implement in terms of balance:
+ It would give the unit a major cover bonus against missile attacks (about 80%-90% reduction in losses).
- It would take a full turn to enter and leave the formation.
- The unit would become "unmaneuvrable" and "large artillery target" while in formation.
- The testudo would not be able to charge and would not get the usual heavy/impact-foot counter charge bonuses if charged by the enemy. Flanking would work as usual.
(- If still not balanced enough, maybe even take the -1 cohesion test modifier that medium troops take when losing charge against heavy unit.)
⁓ If unit is charged while in testudo it would (after the charge(s) but before melee) leave the formation and continue fighting normally (but likely hindered by cohesion loss caused by the charges of course).
The suggested charge and melee mechanics would model the Legionnaire unit realizing it's just about to receive a charge and quickly start deploying back into fighting formation, being unable to respond to the charge effectively but still able to get back into fighting formation presuming it survives the charge(s).
Much like pike square, the use of testudo would be limited to very specific situations but very powerful in the right circumstances. Romans wouldn't be the only ones to get new tactical options from addition of testudo either. Their opponents could try to force the Legionnaires into testudo with their ranged unit to make them easier target for their other troops, like happened in Battle of Carrhae for example:
"For if [the legionaries] decided to lock shields for the purpose of avoiding the arrows by the closeness of their array, the [cataphracts] were upon them with a rush, striking down some, and at least scattering the others; and if they extended their rank to avoid this, they would be struck with the arrows." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testudo_f ... l_analysis
I think the testudo formation whould be pretty easy to implement in terms of balance:
+ It would give the unit a major cover bonus against missile attacks (about 80%-90% reduction in losses).
- It would take a full turn to enter and leave the formation.
- The unit would become "unmaneuvrable" and "large artillery target" while in formation.
- The testudo would not be able to charge and would not get the usual heavy/impact-foot counter charge bonuses if charged by the enemy. Flanking would work as usual.
(- If still not balanced enough, maybe even take the -1 cohesion test modifier that medium troops take when losing charge against heavy unit.)
⁓ If unit is charged while in testudo it would (after the charge(s) but before melee) leave the formation and continue fighting normally (but likely hindered by cohesion loss caused by the charges of course).
The suggested charge and melee mechanics would model the Legionnaire unit realizing it's just about to receive a charge and quickly start deploying back into fighting formation, being unable to respond to the charge effectively but still able to get back into fighting formation presuming it survives the charge(s).
Much like pike square, the use of testudo would be limited to very specific situations but very powerful in the right circumstances. Romans wouldn't be the only ones to get new tactical options from addition of testudo either. Their opponents could try to force the Legionnaires into testudo with their ranged unit to make them easier target for their other troops, like happened in Battle of Carrhae for example:
"For if [the legionaries] decided to lock shields for the purpose of avoiding the arrows by the closeness of their array, the [cataphracts] were upon them with a rush, striking down some, and at least scattering the others; and if they extended their rank to avoid this, they would be struck with the arrows." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testudo_f ... l_analysis
-
- Corporal - Strongpoint
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:45 pm
Re: Testudo
Add it to the growing list of missed opportunities for this game to be great.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Testudo
Wasn't the testudo mainly used in sieges?
Re: Testudo
It was used when under heavy missile fire. A siege would be a common example of such situation but not the only one.
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
Re: Testudo
Did the Romans form a giant testudo at Carrhae? I can’t think of any in game situation where a Roman player would want to turn his army immobile for some modest benefit from enemy missles (which historically would be lh archers that would be extremely lucky to cause many, if any disruptions) sieges, small unit actions sure, pitched battles doesn’t seem right...
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
Re: Testudo
Off topic, but I find this interesting as it’s contrary to the conventional and tiresome dogma that Cavalry cannot harm formed infantry. This implies they were better off in loose formation when receiving a cavalry charge! I’m not sure what the source of this is.MVP7 wrote:
"For if [the legionaries] decided to lock shields for the purpose of avoiding the arrows by the closeness of their array, the [cataphracts] were upon them with a rush, striking down some, and at least scattering the others; and if they extended their rank to avoid this, they would be struck with the arrows." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testudo_f ... l_analysis
Re: Testudo
The source is Cassius Dio, Roman History book 40, 22-2 http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... o/40*.htmlTheGrayMouser wrote:Off topic, but I find this interesting as it’s contrary to the conventional and tiresome dogma that Cavalry cannot harm formed infantry. This implies they were better off in loose formation when receiving a cavalry charge! I’m not sure what the source of this is.MVP7 wrote:
"For if [the legionaries] decided to lock shields for the purpose of avoiding the arrows by the closeness of their array, the [cataphracts] were upon them with a rush, striking down some, and at least scattering the others; and if they extended their rank to avoid this, they would be struck with the arrows." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testudo_f ... l_analysis
This translation and some other sources seem to refer to "pikemen" instead of cataphracts while other sources specify that the Parthian force in that battle consisted of 8000-9000 light cavalry and 1000 cataphracts sent to delay the Romans but mention no infantry. As far as I know Parthian army was mainly light infantry and cavalry so I find it very hard to believe that there would have been actual pikemen present in this battle.
I would imagine that the reason for tight and loose formations having the effects that are described is a result of the way Romans were trained to fight cavalry in that loose but organized formation. They would probably feel very uncomfortable or even panic trying to helplessly deal with the enemy while in a testudo formation that was not meant for those situations at all. From what I have read, morale and sense of security or the lack of thereof seems to have been the main factor in all cavalry vs infantry combat through the history with the actual formations being at almost placebo like role.
Being in Napoleonic era square is secure against cavalry because the people in it think it is secure and stay organized. It would most likely be secure even after the square is mildly disturbed if some people didn't think that it was no longer secure and try to flee, further disturbing the square and making more people think it was no longer secure which ultimately reduces the entire formation into an disorganized mess that the cavalry relies on. This Roman case is probably no different.
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
Re: Testudo
Interesting read!
It appears Cassius is describing a shield wall and close order to defend against the arrow storm not a testudo.
My point was that Cassiu's alleging that a close order shield wall was inferior to facing the heavy cavalry versus an open formation, which flies in the face of what many historians say . If this was true, at least at this battle, I assume that the great length of the cataphracts "pikes" and their momentum literally could push/knock over multiple Romans at once if they were totally packed with interlocking shields. If they had an advantage in open formation, my gut tells me that the catapacts in heavy armour and lacking stirrups became very vulnerable when stopped and in close quarters in the midst of the deep roman ranks, if in open order..
But then again why wernt Norman knights able to knock thru the tight formation of the Saxon army? Or perhaps the "housecarls" formation wasn't nearly as tightly formed as we assume? Two handed axes would appear to necessitate some room to be effective...and certainly no interlocking shields. Perhaps it always comes down to the moral of the men. The cats knowing full well how easy it is to be dragged from a saddle didnt want to enter the ranks of the loose order romans, the knights, although more secure on their horses and less encumbered might very well have enjoyed getting into the ranks of a normal heavy infantry formation , except that at Hasting the size of the house carls AND there BIG axes caused them to balk..?! Always questions and never answers!
It appears Cassius is describing a shield wall and close order to defend against the arrow storm not a testudo.
My point was that Cassiu's alleging that a close order shield wall was inferior to facing the heavy cavalry versus an open formation, which flies in the face of what many historians say . If this was true, at least at this battle, I assume that the great length of the cataphracts "pikes" and their momentum literally could push/knock over multiple Romans at once if they were totally packed with interlocking shields. If they had an advantage in open formation, my gut tells me that the catapacts in heavy armour and lacking stirrups became very vulnerable when stopped and in close quarters in the midst of the deep roman ranks, if in open order..
But then again why wernt Norman knights able to knock thru the tight formation of the Saxon army? Or perhaps the "housecarls" formation wasn't nearly as tightly formed as we assume? Two handed axes would appear to necessitate some room to be effective...and certainly no interlocking shields. Perhaps it always comes down to the moral of the men. The cats knowing full well how easy it is to be dragged from a saddle didnt want to enter the ranks of the loose order romans, the knights, although more secure on their horses and less encumbered might very well have enjoyed getting into the ranks of a normal heavy infantry formation , except that at Hasting the size of the house carls AND there BIG axes caused them to balk..?! Always questions and never answers!
Re: Testudo
Testudo is really just word for the roman shield wall with shielded sides and top plus better mobility than less drilled users of shield wall tactics might have. I wouldn't mind other factions having some units with similar capabilities either but don't know any historical examples to base such requests on.
Regarding momentum and packing of men, I doubt cavalry with or without stirrups could physically push a formation like testudo. It's more likely that crouching helplessly inside the testudo, being poked through the gaps with lances, the legionaries would attempt to dodge or even attack the cavalry from the formation which would cause disorder, stumbling and spreading that would open the formation up for both charges and arrows.
Horse won't willingly run into an obstacle and man can't put the entire momentum of himself, not to mention the momentum of a horses, into a lance thrust whether he had stirrups or not. A charging wall of cavalry would be terrifying to infantry waiting even in a tight formation and the guy who is closest to the enemy might feel like taking a step or two back when they get really close. Any movement like that would cause packing, stumbling and disorder which would give the highly trained cavalry openings to strike at some individuals which further spreads the panic. It's all about morale and training.
Returning to the testudo's use outside of sieges. I can't imagine a roman commander saying "Our troops are surrounded by archers and taking heavy losses, too bad we don't have a city wall to walk towards or we could use our shields to effectively protect ourselves from the arrows". There is no reason why testudo wouldn't be used outside sieges if it was fitting for the situation. Siege is of course the ideal place for testudo because you are constantly under missile fire and there's fairly low risk of the testudo being charged by infantry or cavalry formations. If a legionnaire unit is taking heavy missile fire and suffering losses in the field and no enemy infantry/cavalry in sight there is no reason why they wouldn't get into testudo there as well.
In FoG2 the situations where it would be convenient to get into a testudo formation would be rare but on those occasions it would definitely be nice to have. Playing the Julius Caesar campaign my army with a lot of light units severely weakened and disorganized Pompei's legionnaire heavy army before the battle was even joined, causing more than 20% casualties to several units and disrupting the flanks. Likewise I have myself been in situations where I have had to march my troops through the entire map, being constantly showered by enemy missile units that I couldn't really engage, trying to reach the enemy infantry waiting at the other end of the map. There definitely are situations where testudo would be useful and the enemy could exploit the weaknesses of the formation as well so it would not be one sided addition.
Regarding momentum and packing of men, I doubt cavalry with or without stirrups could physically push a formation like testudo. It's more likely that crouching helplessly inside the testudo, being poked through the gaps with lances, the legionaries would attempt to dodge or even attack the cavalry from the formation which would cause disorder, stumbling and spreading that would open the formation up for both charges and arrows.
Horse won't willingly run into an obstacle and man can't put the entire momentum of himself, not to mention the momentum of a horses, into a lance thrust whether he had stirrups or not. A charging wall of cavalry would be terrifying to infantry waiting even in a tight formation and the guy who is closest to the enemy might feel like taking a step or two back when they get really close. Any movement like that would cause packing, stumbling and disorder which would give the highly trained cavalry openings to strike at some individuals which further spreads the panic. It's all about morale and training.
Returning to the testudo's use outside of sieges. I can't imagine a roman commander saying "Our troops are surrounded by archers and taking heavy losses, too bad we don't have a city wall to walk towards or we could use our shields to effectively protect ourselves from the arrows". There is no reason why testudo wouldn't be used outside sieges if it was fitting for the situation. Siege is of course the ideal place for testudo because you are constantly under missile fire and there's fairly low risk of the testudo being charged by infantry or cavalry formations. If a legionnaire unit is taking heavy missile fire and suffering losses in the field and no enemy infantry/cavalry in sight there is no reason why they wouldn't get into testudo there as well.
In FoG2 the situations where it would be convenient to get into a testudo formation would be rare but on those occasions it would definitely be nice to have. Playing the Julius Caesar campaign my army with a lot of light units severely weakened and disorganized Pompei's legionnaire heavy army before the battle was even joined, causing more than 20% casualties to several units and disrupting the flanks. Likewise I have myself been in situations where I have had to march my troops through the entire map, being constantly showered by enemy missile units that I couldn't really engage, trying to reach the enemy infantry waiting at the other end of the map. There definitely are situations where testudo would be useful and the enemy could exploit the weaknesses of the formation as well so it would not be one sided addition.
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
Re: Testudo
MVP7 wrote:Testudo is really just word for the roman shield wall with shielded sides and top plus better mobility than less drilled users of shield wall tactics might have. I wouldn't mind other factions having some units with similar capabilities either but don't know any historical examples to base such requests on.
Maybe , maybe not, I'm no expert on this battle, but is sounds like shield wall to me...
Regarding momentum and packing of men, I doubt cavalry with or without stirrups could physically push a formation like testudo. It's more likely that crouching helplessly inside the testudo, being poked through the gaps with lances, the legionaries would attempt to dodge or even attack the cavalry from the formation which would cause disorder, stumbling and spreading that would open the formation up for both charges and arrows.
I think your inserting your own assumptions here. You supplied Cassius' description: "the pikemen(cataphracts) were upon them with a rush, striking down some, and at least scattering the others; and if they extended their ranks to avoid this, they would be struck with the arrows. 3 Hereupon many died from fright at the very charge of the pikemen, and many perished hemmed in by
the horsemen. Others were knocked over by the pikes or were carried off transfixed"
Thus, because of their tight formation many were struck, some transfixed some scattered... further if they extended their ranks ie opened up to avoid this ( this being the transfixing etc) they were open to arrows...
Horse won't willingly run into an obstacle and man can't put the entire momentum of himself, not to mention the momentum of a horses, into a lance thrust whether he had stirrups or not. A charging wall of cavalry would be terrifying to infantry waiting even in a tight formation and the guy who is closest to the enemy might feel like taking a step or two back when they get really close. Any movement like that would cause packing, stumbling and disorder which would give the highly trained cavalry openings to strike at some individuals which further spreads the panic. It's all about morale and training.
Horses will do more than you think when the rider directs them. Look at WW1 Italian cavalrymen literally going down vertical surfaces, riding on rooftops etc. Easy to find and amazing photos. This is the mantra of many historians that " horses wont do this or that, perhaps made famous in Keegans The Face of battle... years later I believe the author admitted to have never even ridden on a horse.
To be clear, I think its self evident that a horse will not slam full speed into an unmovable object. Physics dictates that several men touching shoulder do not combine their mass, 4 or five guys each weighing 200 lbs with armor etc is still 200 lbs versus a 1500lbs plus animal... Does a horse really believe a couple humans, even bunched together is an "unmovable object " , especially when spurred into it? That said, did they and or their riders balk and pull up there at the last moment ? Your guess is as good as mine on how often they did or didn't.
Again, cassius is describing the cavalry doing harm more because of the infantry tight formation rather than the lack of it. He says with a rush too, so they at not just poking... Nor can you be transfixed ( in mail armor) with a poke...
Returning to the testudo's use outside of sieges. I can't imagine a roman commander saying "Our troops are surrounded by archers and taking heavy losses, too bad we don't have a city wall to walk towards or we could use our shields to effectively protect ourselves from the arrows". There is no reason why testudo wouldn't be used outside sieges if it was fitting for the situation. Siege is of course the ideal place for testudo because you are constantly under missile fire and there's fairly low risk of the testudo being charged by infantry or cavalry formations. If a legionnaire unit is taking heavy missile fire and suffering losses in the field and no enemy infantry/cavalry in sight there is no reason why they wouldn't get into testudo there as well.
Sure, but raising shield ups to provide cover from long range fire seems universal to anyone that doesn't like being preforated( assuming you have any shields) and need not be a specific formation. The game represents pitched battles. How long do you thing a testudeo could be held? Holding what, a 10-15 pond shield OVER your head seems would be incredibly fatiguing to your deltoids, muscles that are not meant for long endurance marathons. Assaults, sieges sure, maybe an isolated Custards last stands , I dunno.
In FoG2 the situations where it would be convenient to get into a testudo formation would be rare but on those occasions it would definitely be nice to have. Playing the Julius Caesar campaign my army with a lot of light units severely weakened and disorganized Pompei's legionnaire heavy army before the battle was even joined, causing more than 20% casualties to several units and disrupting the flanks. Likewise I have myself been in situations where I have had to march my troops through the entire map, being constantly showered by enemy missile units that I couldn't really engage, trying to reach the enemy infantry waiting at the other end of the map. There definitely are situations where testudo would be useful and the enemy could exploit the weaknesses of the formation as well so it would not be one sided addition.
Well in that example they would just shoot inneffectually if you allowed "testudos" with the bonus yu describe until they ran out of ammo, and then you would roll over the remnents. I dont think the Romans need to many more advantages in this game Cheers man!
Re: Testudo
Yeah, I'm definitely making assumptions because actually knowing would require first hand experience which hasn't been around for hundreds or thousands of years. Educated guessing based on what (more or less reliable and contemporary) written/drawn/painted/carved/dug-up sources remain and what educated guessing others have made based on those and written down is the best you can get these days.
And just to clarify a few of my assumptions/opinions because I'm no longer even sure on what (or if) we are disagreeing on :
- Testudo is a form of the shield wall, whether you call it that or not is largely semantics. At Carrhae it was done in large scale with the entire baggage train and rest of the army in the middle of the formation.
- I believe it is irrelevant whether the men in a formation against cavalry are standing shoulder-to-shoulder or within arms length of each other. The relevant part is that the men feel like they are capable of fighting and winning against the cavalry in whatever formation they are in. For Romans the most comfortable way of fighting cavalry was the same "loose" formation that they used for all close combat. For Napoleonic infantry it was being huddled tightly in a square. For untrained medieval peasant levies there was no imaginable way of fighting what was perceived as superior and unbeatable beings on horses and so they didn't.
- When cavalry breaks an infantry formation it's mainly a matter of harassment and morale, not physically pushing people. The horses are not bulldozing into a wall of spear points and the riders aren't smashing their lances wrist deep into the enemy. Having your horse impaled by spears and falling into the middle of the enemy infantry was not the desired outcome for the rider.
Regarding the level of exhaustion caused by the testudo, I don't see how it would be so extremely taxing to do in an open battle for men specifically trained to do it when compared to siege battles that aren't particularly quick occasions either. In Carrhae the legion held the formation for hours (and whether or not it's called shield wall or not, shields were held upon heads the entire time). I definitely don't see how it would be an actual reason to not have the formation in game that doesn't directly model exhaustion anyway.
This reddit thread has a post with interesting collection of testudo related writings with good links to the sources: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ ... e_testudo/
And coming back to the game "do Romans really need it" is a very valid question. I think in that regard the Pike phalanxes set a precedence: Do pikes really need a formation that removes their only major weakness, the vulnerability to flanking? Balancing the testudo in suggested manner would help the Romans with the biggest weakness of their army list, the vulnerability against light troops, but it would also give their enemies a way to engage them without having to suffer their superior performance in charges.
I certainly wouldn't mind if other highly organized units in the game got some kind of special formations like shield walls and such. It would definitely seem reasonable that a Warband in close-order could form at least a stationary testudo(-esque) formation to protect itself from missiles. I just don't know any examples so I'm not directly suggesting such additions. I feel that in general the infantry with shields seems to be a bit overly vulnerable to missile attacks from their front quarter.
And just to clarify a few of my assumptions/opinions because I'm no longer even sure on what (or if) we are disagreeing on :
- Testudo is a form of the shield wall, whether you call it that or not is largely semantics. At Carrhae it was done in large scale with the entire baggage train and rest of the army in the middle of the formation.
- I believe it is irrelevant whether the men in a formation against cavalry are standing shoulder-to-shoulder or within arms length of each other. The relevant part is that the men feel like they are capable of fighting and winning against the cavalry in whatever formation they are in. For Romans the most comfortable way of fighting cavalry was the same "loose" formation that they used for all close combat. For Napoleonic infantry it was being huddled tightly in a square. For untrained medieval peasant levies there was no imaginable way of fighting what was perceived as superior and unbeatable beings on horses and so they didn't.
- When cavalry breaks an infantry formation it's mainly a matter of harassment and morale, not physically pushing people. The horses are not bulldozing into a wall of spear points and the riders aren't smashing their lances wrist deep into the enemy. Having your horse impaled by spears and falling into the middle of the enemy infantry was not the desired outcome for the rider.
Regarding the level of exhaustion caused by the testudo, I don't see how it would be so extremely taxing to do in an open battle for men specifically trained to do it when compared to siege battles that aren't particularly quick occasions either. In Carrhae the legion held the formation for hours (and whether or not it's called shield wall or not, shields were held upon heads the entire time). I definitely don't see how it would be an actual reason to not have the formation in game that doesn't directly model exhaustion anyway.
This reddit thread has a post with interesting collection of testudo related writings with good links to the sources: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ ... e_testudo/
And coming back to the game "do Romans really need it" is a very valid question. I think in that regard the Pike phalanxes set a precedence: Do pikes really need a formation that removes their only major weakness, the vulnerability to flanking? Balancing the testudo in suggested manner would help the Romans with the biggest weakness of their army list, the vulnerability against light troops, but it would also give their enemies a way to engage them without having to suffer their superior performance in charges.
I certainly wouldn't mind if other highly organized units in the game got some kind of special formations like shield walls and such. It would definitely seem reasonable that a Warband in close-order could form at least a stationary testudo(-esque) formation to protect itself from missiles. I just don't know any examples so I'm not directly suggesting such additions. I feel that in general the infantry with shields seems to be a bit overly vulnerable to missile attacks from their front quarter.
-
- Slitherine
- Posts: 1154
- Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 2:49 pm
- Location: A small island in the Outer Hebrides.
Re: Testudo
............................
Pat a Pixel Pusher
............................
Pat a Pixel Pusher
............................
Re: Testudo
Regarding Cavalry vs formed infantry.
Cassius's account certainly does fly in the face of conventional wisdom. While we do not have the details at a granular level for ancients, we do know that starting with the resurgence of professional infantry in the high middle ages, the preferred instruction for infantry was to close up and form compact formations to counter cavalry. Most of the time though it was with spear/pike like weapons or man made barriers to form a hedgehog of sorts usually with missile weapons embedded in the formation. This is well documented with the tactics of the English during the Hundred Years War where foot bowmen prevailed regularly against fully armored opposition so long as they were entrenched despite the fact that there is considerable evidence that archers couldn't really penetrate armor with any degree of certain. Their mounts were a different story. The tradition of formed infantry in proper formation foiling cavalry charges to me my knowledge is unbroken all the way up to the Napoleonic and American Civil War era.
*insert total speculation based on my knowledge of human psychology, Mongol tactics, roman tactics and formations as I understand it*
My reading of what the few lines actually address the battle implies for me that they the Romans were in Testudo in one way or another. I know of no other roman formation which locks shields since the entire Roman infantry tradition is to fight is relative loose order (Western Med tradition) but with each soldier within mutual support reach of each other. I doubt it was a continuous line of men but more akin to each century or contebernium huddled in its own small formation unable or unwilling to help its neighbours because of the constant threat of missile fire. The word used - "rush" - does not necessarily imply charging and impacting troops upon their shields. Perhaps Cassius is referring to the fact that the the legionaries were so huddled together with a shield wall formation that they were unable to strike back at all and thus the Parthians roamed up and down the line and maybe even between various individual testudos formations striking at any man who was exposed either from fatigue or injury. With the Romans packed together in fear, they would be unable to even hurl javelins in response let alone using swords, there would literally be no pushback and the Parthians could ride with ease in and out of the formations. This is what the "transfixing" comment appears to stem from to me. Any Romans who did break formation to either flee or try to fight back were subject to intense missile fire probably from mounted archers not that far away from the lines themselves since the Romans were stuck in close to a static position.
In any case I think that both can be true. Formed, disciplined heavy infantry, could not be defeated by a heavy cavalry charge. It can also be true that heavy cavalry can be effective against or at least pin heavy infantry provided that they infantry are not equipped with polearm style weapons or had dedicated missile equipped soldiers which could allow them to fight back while heavily shielded. Certainly the evolution of infantry tactics starting with Longbowmen behind stakes slowly seemed to have evolved into the Pike and Shot style combat and then natural evolution of combining pike and musket into one weapon with the bayonet and square formations of the Napoleonic era seem to indicate that this was the preferred method of dealing with cavalry.
Combined arms, which the Parthians clearly used seems to also play an important role in heavy cavalry success vs infantry though. A study of the limited sources regarding the Mongol invasions into Central Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe seem to indicate that the Parthian's success vs heavy infantry could be replicated as long as your mounted units also contained a sizable missile wing which could cause an otherwise well disciplined heavy infantry unit to close up excessively to the point where they are refusing to wield their weapons or to break formation which would open up opportunities for lancer style units.
If my reading is correct, FoG2 models this quite well. For example Lancer units simply don't get PoA vs spears and pikes who are steady. That changes the moment they are disrupted. A good hail of missile fire from friendly mounted archers could produce such an effect.
*End speculative analysis*
As for Pikes "needing" square formation. They probably do. They are point for point more expensive as a unit than Impact Foot with more restrictions in terrain and are unmaneuverable. They are also incapable of impacting the battlefield in anyway once they enter square formation in that no ZoCs are projected and take a full turn to enter or exit out. If anything Pikes need a bit of a buff.
Cassius's account certainly does fly in the face of conventional wisdom. While we do not have the details at a granular level for ancients, we do know that starting with the resurgence of professional infantry in the high middle ages, the preferred instruction for infantry was to close up and form compact formations to counter cavalry. Most of the time though it was with spear/pike like weapons or man made barriers to form a hedgehog of sorts usually with missile weapons embedded in the formation. This is well documented with the tactics of the English during the Hundred Years War where foot bowmen prevailed regularly against fully armored opposition so long as they were entrenched despite the fact that there is considerable evidence that archers couldn't really penetrate armor with any degree of certain. Their mounts were a different story. The tradition of formed infantry in proper formation foiling cavalry charges to me my knowledge is unbroken all the way up to the Napoleonic and American Civil War era.
*insert total speculation based on my knowledge of human psychology, Mongol tactics, roman tactics and formations as I understand it*
My reading of what the few lines actually address the battle implies for me that they the Romans were in Testudo in one way or another. I know of no other roman formation which locks shields since the entire Roman infantry tradition is to fight is relative loose order (Western Med tradition) but with each soldier within mutual support reach of each other. I doubt it was a continuous line of men but more akin to each century or contebernium huddled in its own small formation unable or unwilling to help its neighbours because of the constant threat of missile fire. The word used - "rush" - does not necessarily imply charging and impacting troops upon their shields. Perhaps Cassius is referring to the fact that the the legionaries were so huddled together with a shield wall formation that they were unable to strike back at all and thus the Parthians roamed up and down the line and maybe even between various individual testudos formations striking at any man who was exposed either from fatigue or injury. With the Romans packed together in fear, they would be unable to even hurl javelins in response let alone using swords, there would literally be no pushback and the Parthians could ride with ease in and out of the formations. This is what the "transfixing" comment appears to stem from to me. Any Romans who did break formation to either flee or try to fight back were subject to intense missile fire probably from mounted archers not that far away from the lines themselves since the Romans were stuck in close to a static position.
In any case I think that both can be true. Formed, disciplined heavy infantry, could not be defeated by a heavy cavalry charge. It can also be true that heavy cavalry can be effective against or at least pin heavy infantry provided that they infantry are not equipped with polearm style weapons or had dedicated missile equipped soldiers which could allow them to fight back while heavily shielded. Certainly the evolution of infantry tactics starting with Longbowmen behind stakes slowly seemed to have evolved into the Pike and Shot style combat and then natural evolution of combining pike and musket into one weapon with the bayonet and square formations of the Napoleonic era seem to indicate that this was the preferred method of dealing with cavalry.
Combined arms, which the Parthians clearly used seems to also play an important role in heavy cavalry success vs infantry though. A study of the limited sources regarding the Mongol invasions into Central Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe seem to indicate that the Parthian's success vs heavy infantry could be replicated as long as your mounted units also contained a sizable missile wing which could cause an otherwise well disciplined heavy infantry unit to close up excessively to the point where they are refusing to wield their weapons or to break formation which would open up opportunities for lancer style units.
If my reading is correct, FoG2 models this quite well. For example Lancer units simply don't get PoA vs spears and pikes who are steady. That changes the moment they are disrupted. A good hail of missile fire from friendly mounted archers could produce such an effect.
*End speculative analysis*
As for Pikes "needing" square formation. They probably do. They are point for point more expensive as a unit than Impact Foot with more restrictions in terrain and are unmaneuverable. They are also incapable of impacting the battlefield in anyway once they enter square formation in that no ZoCs are projected and take a full turn to enter or exit out. If anything Pikes need a bit of a buff.
Stratford Scramble Tournament
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=494&t=99766&p=861093#p861093
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=494&t=99766&p=861093#p861093
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/
Re: Testudo
That speculation is very much as I would imagine it to have happened as well MikeC.
This is some of my speculation on why (unlike virtually everyone else in history) the Romans would fight cavalry in relatively loose formation:
It could be the result of their choice of weapons and their high level of training as fighters. If they can avoid or parry the rider's attack with their shield and get past the lance, then the legs of the horse could already be within easy striking distance of their swords or someone in the rear ranks could throw a pilum at the attacker. Riding into the relatively loose Roman formation would probably be a quick death sentence for the cavalry as the horse's legs would be cut and the fallen rider killed without causing any massive amount of disturbance to the flexible formation. The Romans would have the skill and discipline (and as a result, the confidence) needed to fight the cavalry in a way that is not necessarily the optimal or the easiest. In a tight formation, not to mention a phalanx or shield-wall, it could be much harder to move enough to get into striking distance with gladius and it would probably be harder to throw something from the tightly packed ranks as well.
Pretty much every other significant development of heavy infantry in history has been build around pole-arms with swords being a backup weapon at best. With spears, pikes and halberds it's preferable to keep the enemy at distance and easiest way to achieve that is to have weapons packed as tightly as possible. What the tight formation loses in mobility it gains in reach. Avoiding the cavalry's attack and moving in is no longer an issue when you have similar or better reach with your own weapons. The importance of individual fighting skill is diminished as every man can more easily rely on the help of his comrades. Even if one man misses the enemy with his pike there's still several other weapons between the rider and the infantry. The tight formation also leaves little chance for leaving one's position. Even relatively raw and untrained troops can effectively repel knights (professional warriors) with tight pole-arm formations like the Scottish did in 13th century. Well trained heavy infantry like the Swiss Halberdiers/Pikemen of high and late medieval started a revolution that ultimately resulted, together with firearms, in near disappearance and marginalization of heavy impact cavalry in early Pike-and-Shot era.
If infantry with thrusting polearms (especially if used one handed with a shield) fought in a loose formation like the Legionnaires, it would be a lot easier for cavalry to get past the sparse wall of spear points and into the striking distance of now largely helpless infantryman. This arrangement would rely a lot more on the individual skill of the foot soldier, which he most likely does not have as infantry was rarely as well (if at all) trained as the cavalry. Alone in the loose formation, feeling the insufficiency of his abilities against the thundering charging cavalry, the men would be much more likely to turn and run; starting a domino effect which is exactly what the cavalry hopes to achieve.
TL;DR - Speculation: Fighting cavalry in loose formation requires more individual skill and discipline from the infantry but was more efficient with the weapons the Romans used (short sword and throwing spear). Fighting cavalry in tight formation with polearms requires less fighting skill and is less demanding psychologically and can therefore be done by less trained troops.
This is some of my speculation on why (unlike virtually everyone else in history) the Romans would fight cavalry in relatively loose formation:
It could be the result of their choice of weapons and their high level of training as fighters. If they can avoid or parry the rider's attack with their shield and get past the lance, then the legs of the horse could already be within easy striking distance of their swords or someone in the rear ranks could throw a pilum at the attacker. Riding into the relatively loose Roman formation would probably be a quick death sentence for the cavalry as the horse's legs would be cut and the fallen rider killed without causing any massive amount of disturbance to the flexible formation. The Romans would have the skill and discipline (and as a result, the confidence) needed to fight the cavalry in a way that is not necessarily the optimal or the easiest. In a tight formation, not to mention a phalanx or shield-wall, it could be much harder to move enough to get into striking distance with gladius and it would probably be harder to throw something from the tightly packed ranks as well.
Pretty much every other significant development of heavy infantry in history has been build around pole-arms with swords being a backup weapon at best. With spears, pikes and halberds it's preferable to keep the enemy at distance and easiest way to achieve that is to have weapons packed as tightly as possible. What the tight formation loses in mobility it gains in reach. Avoiding the cavalry's attack and moving in is no longer an issue when you have similar or better reach with your own weapons. The importance of individual fighting skill is diminished as every man can more easily rely on the help of his comrades. Even if one man misses the enemy with his pike there's still several other weapons between the rider and the infantry. The tight formation also leaves little chance for leaving one's position. Even relatively raw and untrained troops can effectively repel knights (professional warriors) with tight pole-arm formations like the Scottish did in 13th century. Well trained heavy infantry like the Swiss Halberdiers/Pikemen of high and late medieval started a revolution that ultimately resulted, together with firearms, in near disappearance and marginalization of heavy impact cavalry in early Pike-and-Shot era.
If infantry with thrusting polearms (especially if used one handed with a shield) fought in a loose formation like the Legionnaires, it would be a lot easier for cavalry to get past the sparse wall of spear points and into the striking distance of now largely helpless infantryman. This arrangement would rely a lot more on the individual skill of the foot soldier, which he most likely does not have as infantry was rarely as well (if at all) trained as the cavalry. Alone in the loose formation, feeling the insufficiency of his abilities against the thundering charging cavalry, the men would be much more likely to turn and run; starting a domino effect which is exactly what the cavalry hopes to achieve.
TL;DR - Speculation: Fighting cavalry in loose formation requires more individual skill and discipline from the infantry but was more efficient with the weapons the Romans used (short sword and throwing spear). Fighting cavalry in tight formation with polearms requires less fighting skill and is less demanding psychologically and can therefore be done by less trained troops.